By Bob Katzen

QUESTION 1: MAKE RECORDS OF THE LEGISLATURE AND THE GOVERNOR PUBLIC RECORDS

This question asks voters if they approve of a proposed law that would make most records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office public records and available to the public under the Massachusetts Public Records Law. Exemptions include communications between legislators and their constituents, if they are a request by the constituent for assistance in obtaining government-provided benefits or services.

WHAT SUPPORTERS SAY:

“I believe voters should vote “Yes” on Question 1 because Massachusetts residents deserve the same meaningful access to government records from their elected leaders that they expect from other public agencies,” State Auditor Diana DiZoglio told Beacon Hill Roll Call. DiZoglio is also the chair of the Committee on Transparency and Democracy – the group that is sponsoring the question. “As State Auditor, I have seen firsthand how difficult it can be to obtain information from the Legislature, and voters should not have to rely on closed-door processes when public business is being conducted.”

DiZoglio continued, “Opponents have raised concerns about costs and the burden of disclosure, but those arguments should not obscure the basic principle that government records created in service to the public should be accessible to the public. Our campaign is continuing to organize and educate voters because this is ultimately about who government works for—the People—and whether Massachusetts will finally bring its most powerful elected institutions into a stronger culture of transparency and accountability.”

WHAT OPPONENTS SAY:

There is no organized group urging a “No” vote on this question.

Opponents in general say that this proposed law violates the separation of powers mandated by the Massachusetts Constitution by requiring the secretary of state, an executive branch official, to enforce this law against the legislative branch – the House and Senate. They note that giving this power to the secretary would violate the state constitution. They say that this change would take a constitutional amendment to implement, not a state law.

They argue that the legislative process is already publicly accessible at the Statehouse and online. They say that advance notice is given of upcoming public hearings which are broadcast live online and then archived for viewing after the livestream is over. They say that public and advocacy groups are allowed and encouraged to testify in person, remotely online and in writing.

OFFICIAL ARGUMENTS: Here are the official arguments, gathered by the secretary of state, from each side of the question:

IN FAVOR:

“Massachusetts deserves open government. Good government groups rank our state the least transparent in the nation. We’re one of only two states where both the governor’s office and the Legislature claim a blanket exemption from the public records law. Every city, town and state agency must follow that law, but the politicians on Beacon Hill exempted themselves.

Question 1 puts the Legislature and the governor’s office under the same public records law as everyone else. It protects constituent privacy, and the Secretary of Administration and Finance has certified that it has no cost to taxpayers.

In 2024, 72% of voters said yes to auditing the Legislature. Beacon Hill is still fighting that vote — but Question 1 will give you and every taxpayer the ability to access public records directly.

You have a right to see what your government is doing with your hard-earned taxpayer dollars. Please vote ‘Yes’ on Question 1.”

AGAINST:

“The proposed law includes overly broad and poorly defined exemptions. It would exempt from public disclosure documents related to the development of public policy, but only during policy development. These records would become public once the policy is developed. This limited and temporary exemption will chill open communications by lawmakers, raising significant constitutional concerns, particularly around legislative speech and debate protections.

The narrow protection for constituent communications creates serious privacy risks. By only exempting correspondence tied to benefits or agency interaction, the law leaves vulnerable to public disclosure all other general constituent communications, such as emails and letters from citizens expressing personal political views, sharing sensitive local grievances or criticizing lawmakers. This lack of comprehensive privacy protection will negatively affect civic engagement and deter residents from contacting their elected officials.

Ultimately, this measure creates a flawed framework that fails to deliver genuine accountability while actively compromising constituent privacy.”

WHAT YOUR VOTE DOES:

A “Yes” vote is in favor of making most records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office public records and available to the public under the Massachusetts Public Records Law.

A “No” vote is against making most records held by the Legislature and the governor’s office public records and available to the public under the Massachusetts Public Records Law.